Sign In

Getting to grips with supply chain emissions

The largest pro­por­tion of the aver­age company’s car­bon foot­print is imposed by its sup­pli­ers. How should firms go about cut­ting CO2 emis­sions that are beyond their direct con­trol? 


Share on X
Share on LinkedIn
Share by email
Save in your account

Until recent­ly, busi­ness­es have focused on their own oper­a­tions in the effort to cut their green­house gas emis­sions, yet it’s becom­ing abun­dant­ly clear that the vast major­i­ty of the aver­age firm’s car­bon foot­print is cre­at­ed in its sup­ply chain. 

Data from Car­bon Track­er, a think-tank research­ing the effect of cli­mate change on the finan­cial mar­kets, sug­gests that between 80% and 97% of a company’s total car­bon foot­print lies in the scope-three cat­e­go­ry. This encom­pass­es the CO2 emis­sions of its sup­pli­ers and also of down­stream activ­i­ties such as the con­sump­tion of its prod­ucts and their end-of-life treat­ment. 

More­over, the Net-Zero Chal­lenge report pub­lished by the World Eco­nom­ic Forum and the Boston Con­sult­ing Group in Jan­u­ary con­clud­ed that the sup­ply chains of some key con­sumer-fac­ing indus­tries are respon­si­ble for more than half of all glob­al green­house gas emis­sions. 

As Tyler Chaf­fo, man­ag­er of glob­al sus­tain­abil­i­ty at pack­ag­ing com­pa­ny Avery Den­ni­son, observes: “It’s very chal­leng­ing to achieve net zero if you’re fail­ing to quan­ti­fy your biggest con­trib­u­tor.”

San­jay Sadarangani, glob­al head of sus­tain­abil­i­ty, glob­al trade and receiv­ables finance at HSBC, agrees. He notes that the public’s improv­ing aware­ness of cli­mate change and its caus­es is putting ever-increas­ing pres­sure on gov­ern­ments, com­pa­nies and the finan­cial sec­tor to take reme­di­al action. 

Like­wise, envi­ron­men­tal­ly con­scious con­sumers “want to make informed choic­es about the clothes they wear and the food they con­sume. Sup­pli­ers that don’t put in mea­sures to address all their CO2 emis­sions will see dimin­ish­ing demand for their goods and ser­vices, either because their con­sumers won’t accept their prod­ucts or because of reg­u­la­tions such as the UK’s ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehi­cles from 2030.”

Aside from envi­ron­men­tal rea­sons, the costs of inac­tion are increas­ing, adds Alex Sar­ic, chief mar­ket­ing offi­cer at Ival­ua, a provider of sup­ply man­age­ment soft­ware. “If organ­i­sa­tions can’t assess their sup­pli­ers’ envi­ron­men­tal impact, they may lose out to green­er rivals, face rep­u­ta­tion­al dam­age or risk non-com­pli­ance as new reg­u­la­tions come into force,” he says.

Improv­ing sus­tain­abil­i­ty is not sim­ply about choos­ing sup­pli­ers with more sus­tain­able prac­tices. It’s also about col­lab­o­rat­ing to make con­tin­u­ous improve­ments

Chaf­fo points to an esti­mate in Feb­ru­ary by the Car­bon Dis­clo­sure Project (CDP) that “com­pa­nies are fac­ing up to $120bn [£87bn] in costs from envi­ron­men­tal risks in their sup­ply chains with­in the next five years. The risks for the com­pa­ny also apply to its sup­pli­ers, as these all roll up the val­ue chain. Sup­pli­ers face the poten­tial of lost rev­enue, reg­u­la­to­ry pres­sure and enter­prise risk for non-com­pli­ance. Sup­pli­ers and com­pa­nies there­fore need to col­lab­o­rate to solve scope-three chal­lenges.” 

The first step in this process is to mea­sure emis­sions and iden­ti­fy areas for improve­ment. This can be done using estab­lished stan­dards such as the Green­house Gas (GHG) Pro­to­col or by work­ing with organ­i­sa­tions such as the CDP through its sup­ply chain pro­grammes. 

Sadarangani notes that the GHG Pro­to­col is the only inter­na­tion­al­ly accept­ed method for a com­pa­ny to account for its indi­rect emis­sions. This rec­om­mends that a firm “iden­ti­fies which scope-three activ­i­ties are expect­ed to pro­duce the most sig­nif­i­cant emis­sions, offer the most sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tion oppor­tu­ni­ties and be most rel­e­vant to its busi­ness goals”.

Amer­i­can Express is in the process of set­ting offi­cial tar­gets and mea­sure­ments in aid of its car­bon-neu­tral­i­ty plan, which encom­pass­es scope-three emis­sions, accord­ing to its head of cor­po­rate social respon­si­bil­i­ty, Madge Thomas. These will be cal­cu­lat­ed in align­ment with the GHG Protocol’s stan­dard for cor­po­rate val­ue chain account­ing and report­ing. The company’s cal­cu­la­tions are inde­pen­dent­ly checked accord­ing to the ISO 14064–3 stan­dard, which spec­i­fies the require­ments for third-par­ty ver­i­fiers.

Thomas reports that Amer­i­can Express will mea­sure and address indi­rect CO2 emis­sions in cat­e­gories includ­ing: com­mut­ing and oth­er busi­ness trav­el by employ­ees; pur­chased goods and ser­vices; cap­i­tal goods; fuel and ener­gy-relat­ed activ­i­ties; the use of sold prod­ucts; and the end-of-life treat­ment of those prod­ucts. 

“We’re also plan­ning to work with sup­pli­ers to invite them to track, reduce and even­tu­al­ly neu­tralise their oper­a­tional green­house gas emis­sions,” she adds.

Sar­ic notes that, if organ­i­sa­tions are to effec­tive­ly counter the threat of cli­mate change and meet ever-increas­ing pub­lic expec­ta­tions about sus­tain­able busi­ness, mea­sur­ing the impact of both their imme­di­ate and sub-tier sup­pli­ers is a must. 

“Improv­ing sus­tain­abil­i­ty and achiev­ing real change is not sim­ply about choos­ing sup­pli­ers with more sus­tain­able prac­tices. It’s also about col­lab­o­rat­ing with them to make con­tin­u­ous improve­ments,” he stress­es. “Organ­i­sa­tions must work with sup­pli­ers in sev­er­al tiers of the chain to find inno­v­a­tive ways to reduce their scope-three emis­sions.”

Busi­ness­es must also mea­sure their emis­sions reg­u­lar­ly, Sar­ic argues. If they don’t make it a con­tin­u­ous process, they won’t be able to gauge their car­bon foot­print accu­rate­ly enough over time and work effec­tive­ly with their sup­pli­ers to reduce it. 

“This col­lab­o­ra­tion is vital in ben­e­fit­ing busi­ness and the plan­et,” he says. “By estab­lish­ing an ongo­ing dia­logue with sup­pli­ers, com­pa­nies will be able to iden­ti­fy new areas of inno­va­tion, improve effi­cien­cy and max­imise their growth.”

Tech­nol­o­gy can help when it comes to improv­ing coop­er­a­tion in the val­ue chain, says Sadarangani, who notes that sev­er­al organ­i­sa­tions have start­ed using appli­ca­tions that enable the col­lec­tion and analy­sis of data relat­ing to their sup­pli­ers’ ESG per­for­mance. These appli­ca­tions fea­ture self-assess­ment sur­veys for sup­pli­ers, which are required to upload doc­u­men­tary evi­dence to sup­port their claims. The tech­nol­o­gy can also bench­mark a supplier’s per­for­mance against that of peers in com­pa­ra­ble indus­tries, enabling users to iden­ti­fy areas where sig­nif­i­cant improve­ments could be achieved.

Chaf­fo believes that tech­nol­o­gy will play a key role in address­ing emis­sions in the sup­ply chain. This starts with an “ini­tial quan­tifi­ca­tion of an enterprise’s scope-three emis­sions but also includes iden­ti­fy­ing hot spots for reduc­tion and, ulti­mate­ly, imple­ment­ing solu­tions. Now that we’re able to track at an item lev­el the car­bon foot­print of a prod­uct as it moves through the sup­ply chain, we’re able to pro­vide brands and retail­ers with a more accu­rate pic­ture of their scope-three emis­sions.”